Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
On 25 Aug 2012, at 07:53, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/24/2012 12:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Aug 2012, at 03:21, Stephen P. King wrote: Bruno does not seem to ever actually address this directly. It is left as an open problem The body problem? I address this directly as I show how we have to translate the body problem in a pure problem of arithmetic, and that is why eventually we cannot postulate anything physical to solve the mind body problem without losing the quanta qualia distinction. Again this is a conclusion of a reasoning. Dear Bruno, OK! But just take this one small step further. Losing the quanta / qualia distinction is the same thing as loosing the ability to define one's self. I am not talking of someone losing that distinction, but on losing the ability to use the distinction between G and G*, and between Z1 and Z1*, and also the ability to use S4Grz1 in that context. The interest of using the machine theory of self reference is that we can distinguish between what the machine can say, and what is true wabout what the machine can say, through what I called already the Solovay split. It is the vanishing of identity. This is exactly why I am claiming that step 8 goes too far! AUDA comes after UDA, and is in some sense independent. But anyway, I was not alluding to an experience, but to a theory of mind and matter. The idea that we can remove the necessity of a robust physical universe and yet retain all of its properties is the assumption of primitive substance but just turned inside-out. Look at the substance article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory Substance theory, or substance attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood, positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears. What purpose does substance serve here? By Occam it is unnecessary and thus need not be postulated or imagined to exist. Primitive matter would be this notion of substance and as you point out, it is irrelevant. But the bundle of properties that define for us the appearance of physical stuff cannot be waved away. They are not. Reduction to bare arithmetic as you propose eliminates access to the very properties required for interaction and this includes the means to distinguish self from not self. Here you are technically false. If you don't want to the math, read any conclsuoion of papers aroung Gödel 1931. The notion of universal computations, and implementation can be defined in arithmetic, like interaction, etc. The herad things is to derive the interaction as they are described by physics, but that is the result. Then AUDA shapes the general solution. And AUDA is the illustration of the universal machine tackles that problem, and this gives already the theology of the machine, including its propositional physics (the logic of measure one). But this is ignoring the non-constructable aspects that make out finite naming schemes have a relative measure zero. What is the measure of the Integers in the Reals? Which real? An additive measure? What is this question for, as the measure are on the continuum of the infinite histories? You keep seeing problems where there are none, and not seeing problem where I point on them. There is really only one major disagreement between Bruno and I and it is our definitions of Universality. He defines computations and numbers are existing completely seperated from the physical and I insist that there must be at least one physical system that can actually implement a given computation. This is almost revisionism. I challenge you to find a standard book in theoretical computer science in which the physical is even just invoked to define the notion of computation. How about Turing's own papers? http://www.turingarchive.org/viewer/?id=459title=1 Without the possibility of physical implementation (not attachment to any particular physical system which is contra universality) there is no possibility of any input or output control. Peter Wegner et al make some some powerful arguments in terms of interactive computation... It is interesting but it does not concerns us a priori. If if helps you to find a solution please do. Most notion of physical implementations of computation use the mathematical notion above. Not the contrary. Deutsch' thesis is not Church's thesis. Sure, but Deutsch is not trying to make computation float free of the physical world Unlike you in your last post, Deustch does postulate a form of physicalism, through his thesis, but it can be shown inconsistent with comp. Indeed that's an easy consequence of UDA. The quantum many- worlds extend it comp many dreams, and both the collapse and the wave are appearances. and thus
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
On 23 Aug 2012, at 03:21, Stephen P. King wrote: Bruno does not seem to ever actually address this directly. It is left as an open problem The body problem? I address this directly as I show how we have to translate the body problem in a pure problem of arithmetic, and that is why eventually we cannot postulate anything physical to solve the mind body problem without losing the quanta qualia distinction. Again this is a conclusion of a reasoning. And AUDA is the illustration of the universal machine tackles that problem, and this gives already the theology of the machine, including its propositional physics (the logic of measure one). There is really only one major disagreement between Bruno and I and it is our definitions of Universality. He defines computations and numbers are existing completely seperated from the physical and I insist that there must be at least one physical system that can actually implement a given computation. This is almost revisionism. I challenge you to find a standard book in theoretical computer science in which the physical is even just invoked to define the notion of computation. Most notion of physical implementations of computation use the mathematical notion above. Not the contrary. Deutsch' thesis is not Church's thesis. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard, There are an infinite number of different monads, since the world is filled with them and each is a different perspective on the whole of the rest. Not only that, but they keep changing, as all life does. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 11:24:16 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: ?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. ?rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. ?ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. ? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, ? Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Roger, OK, we agree on this. The question then becomes how to explain the appearance of extension. On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Monads could never be embedded in anything because they are inextended. You as a person are inextended. Mind is inextended. Feelings are inextended. Thoughts are inextended. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 11:19:29 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Richard, This description assumes an embedding space-time that is separable from the monads in it. One alternative is to work with an abstract model of (closed under mutual inclusion) totally disconnected compact spaces where the individual components of the space are the images that a set of mutually reflecting monads have. This allows us to use Greene's r - 1/r duality and the Stone duality as well. ;-) On 8/22/2012 9:15 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Yes Stephan, The 10^500 possible windings of flux constraining the compactified dimensions are sufficient to populate some 10^120 universes with every monad unique or distinct. The CYMs are known to be discrete and since the hyperfine constant varies across the universe it is likely that the monads are distinct. That this all comes from a subspace of ennumerable particles to my mind satisfies Occum's Razor. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! On 8/22/2012 2:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem? Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique theory? To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history, despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest as much. Jason On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard Ruquist I don't know if compact manifolds are unique, that's your forte. But monads are definitely not unique-- they are infinitely varied and keep varying. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 12:34:59 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, According to Shing-Tung Yau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing-Tung_Yau current Head of the Harvard Math Dept. who verified Calabi's Conjecture, the compact manifolds are 1000 Planck lengths across and are constraaned by higher-order EM flux that winds thru its 500 holes (see The Shape of Inner Space by Yau). It is considered that each flux winding has 10 quantum states so that the total number of distinct windings is 10^500. I suggest that the number of quantum states rather may equal the dimensionality of the compact manifolds, so that the number of possibilities is 6^500 or 10^389, which is just enough to fill a good sized universe like ours with every Compact Manifold being unique. Thanks for your interest. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: ?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. ?rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. ?ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. ? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, ? Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard Ruquist That's why I am pleased ro have you as a fellow explorer. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 13:16:14 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Thank God- just an expression. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, I am familiar with those idea and several others that are similar (such as that of Matti Pitkanen who I have had long discussions with). Yau and the others seem to retain the same ontological assumptions that modern physics has been using. My philosophical inquiry is exploring alternative ontologies that do not assume primitive physicality as fundamental. This has forced me to go back and dig up all of the prior work, such as Leibniz and Descartes, on ontology. It is ironic but the claimed rejection of philosophical implications and questions by modern physicist and their shut up and calculate attitudes have only deepened the problem that they face. Only recently, physicists like Chris Isham and Roger Penrose have had the timerity to broach the philosophical questions and have faced the problems squarely. On 8/22/2012 12:34 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephen, According to Shing-Tung Yau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing-Tung_Yau current Head of the Harvard Math Dept. who verified Calabi's Conjecture, the compact manifolds are 1000 Planck lengths across and are constraaned by higher-order EM flux that winds thru its 500 holes (see The Shape of Inner Space by Yau). It is considered that each flux winding has 10 quantum states so that the total number of distinct windings is 10^500. I suggest that the number of quantum states rather may equal the dimensionality of the compact manifolds, so that the number of possibilities is 6^500 or 10^389, which is just enough to fill a good sized universe like ours with every Compact Manifold being unique. Thanks for your interest. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: ?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. ?rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. ?ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. ? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, ? Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi meekerdb IMHO Empty strings are not monads, they are just empty strings. Monads are inextended. Even though they may contain nothing, empty strings are still extended as I see it. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 21:35:56 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology On 8/22/2012 6:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/22/2012 7:43 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 1:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/22/2012 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:36 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! NP-complete problems, or just N-problems, are ones that consume a lot of computational resources for large problems. But the required resources are finite and the problems are solvable. So what's the problem? Brent -- It is all about how big the finite problems grow to and whether or not their demand for resources can be kept up with the load. It seems to me that Nature would divide up the labor into as many niches as possible and have a distributed on demand system rather than a single top down computation system. But you're trying to explain nature. You seem to be assuming nature as a limited resource in the explanation, thus assuming the thing you're trying to explain. Bruno at least puts his explanation in Platonia where the resources are infinite. Brent -- Hi Brent, Of course I am trying to explain Nature, in the sense of building a ontological theoretical framework. If one starts assuming that Nature has infinite resources available then one has to ask why is there a finite world with all the thermodynamic drudgery? How do you know the world is finite? Most cosmologies allow that the multiverse is infinite in extent. Bruno does not seem to ever actually address this directly. Sure he does. The UD only uses finite resources at any give step - the states are countable and are only executed finitely. It is left as an open problem. This is why he dismisses the NP-Complete problem so casually... It is easy to think that way when thinking in top - down terms. I am assuming the known physical laws, particularly thermodynamics and working back down to the ontology. Physical laws are never 'known'. They are models to explain our observations. If you assume them, then you've assume the model is correct and the ontology is whatever exists in the model. Why would you do that?? He and I are looking from opposite directions. It does not mean that we fundamentally disagree on the general picture. There is really only one major disagreement between Bruno and I and it is our definitions of Universality. He defines computations and numbers are existing completely seperated from the physical and I insist that there must be at least one physical system that can actually implement a given computation. I think it is probably a consequence of his theory that persons can only exist when physics exists and vice versa; but it is difficult to work out the implications (especially for me, maybe not for Bruno). This puts the material worlds and immaterial realm on equal ontological footings and joined together in a isomorphism type duality relation because of this restriction. That means
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Stephen P. King If you can measure it, or potentially do so it's extended. Mass. size, color, voltage, etc. Whatever physical science deals with. Science thus deals exclusively with extended objects. If you can think of something, the thought (Where did i put that damn tie ?) is inextended, although the (out-in-the=world) object of thought (an actual tie in the closet) is extended. Note that the tie you thought of is inextended while being a thought, but extended as a tie actually hanging in the closet. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 08:18:36 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Roger, OK, we agree on this. The question then becomes how to explain the appearance of extension. On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Monads could never be embedded in anything because they are inextended. You as a person are inextended. Mind is inextended. Feelings are inextended. Thoughts are inextended. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 11:19:29 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Richard, This description assumes an embedding space-time that is separable from the monads in it. One alternative is to work with an abstract model of (closed under mutual inclusion) totally disconnected compact spaces where the individual components of the space are the images that a set of mutually reflecting monads have. This allows us to use Greene's r - 1/r duality and the Stone duality as well. ;-) On 8/22/2012 9:15 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Yes Stephan, The 10^500 possible windings of flux constraining the compactified dimensions are sufficient to populate some 10^120 universes with every monad unique or distinct. The CYMs are known to be discrete and since the hyperfine constant varies across the universe it is likely that the monads are distinct. That this all comes from a subspace of ennumerable particles to my mind satisfies Occum's Razor. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! On 8/22/2012 2:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem? Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique theory? To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history, despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest as much. Jason On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem? Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique theory? To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history, despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest as much. Jason On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. Kovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Stephen P. King Unlike everyday strings, the strings of string theory are not extended in space. The particles they describe, however, are extended in space. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 15:25:31 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
On 22 Aug 2012, at 08:31, Jason Resch wrote: What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem? Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique theory? But that would be a problem for comp. Comp predicts, at first sight, that the physical reality is unique, and the same for all universal machine. If we find an empirical reason for believing in cluster of different physical realities comp might be in trouble. Physics is unique because, below our substitution level, it is somehow a sum on *all* computations, by the first person indeterminacy. It is weird, and this might point on some reason to believe comp false. With comp physics is determined entirely by arithmetic (or computationally equivalent). To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history, despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest as much. Not sure. Copenhagen and Bohm, try to select a model, or a solution of an equation among many. The selection is at the level of the model (in the logician sense), not of the theory. The theory QM might suggest that in showing the interferences of the solutions of the equations (through superposition), but the first person indeterminacy does not lead to much choice, in comp. Bruno Jason On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. arXiv:nucl-ex/ 09031471, 2009. Kovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard Ruquist I must be missing something. Wouldn't string theory be experimentally verified if it correctly predicts the motion of particles ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 15:39:37 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma? already found at the LHC and several other sites. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, ? Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings.? So how does it follow that strings aren't real.? That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself.? But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ?? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... ? For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address.? ? ? ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Baloney. Strings are extended in space. Where did you get that from? On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Unlike everyday strings, the strings of string theory are not extended in space. The particles they describe, however, are extended in space. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 15:25:31 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! On 8/22/2012 2:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem? Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique theory? To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history, despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest as much. Jason On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. Kovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The
Re: Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard Ruquist I think the problem is with the word strings. It's confusing, because it causes you to make a mental picture of strings and so consider them as actual physical strings in space. But strings only exist on paper, not in the physical word. They're just equations, descriptions of how particles move. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 06:50:00 Subject: Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Baloney. Strings are extended in space. Where did you get that from? On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King ? Unlike everyday strings, the strings of string theory are not extended in space. The particles they describe, however, are extended in space. ? ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 15:25:31 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, ? Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings.? So how does it follow that strings aren't real.? That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself.? But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ?? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... ? For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address.? ? ? ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant? varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: ?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.??rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. ?ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. ?? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma? already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, ?? Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, ? Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings.? So how does it follow that strings aren't real.? That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself.? But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ?? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... ? For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address.? ? ? ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Yes Stephan, The 10^500 possible windings of flux constraining the compactified dimensions are sufficient to populate some 10^120 universes with every monad unique or distinct. The CYMs are known to be discrete and since the hyperfine constant varies across the universe it is likely that the monads are distinct. That this all comes from a subspace of ennumerable particles to my mind satisfies Occum's Razor. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! On 8/22/2012 2:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem? Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique theory? To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history, despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest as much. Jason On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. Kovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger
Re: Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
No Roger, Take f=ma. M is a physical entity for sure. F is often taken to be physical as well, Strings are both particles of force and mass. QED Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I think the problem is with the word strings. It's confusing, because it causes you to make a mental picture of strings and so consider them as actual physical strings in space. But strings only exist on paper, not in the physical word. They're just equations, descriptions of how particles move. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 06:50:00 *Subject:* Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Baloney. Strings are extended in space. Where did you get that from? On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King � Unlike everyday strings, the strings of string theory are not extended in space. The particles they describe, however, are extended in space. � � Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 15:25:31 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, � Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--爄nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings.� So how does it follow that strings aren't real.� That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself.� But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent 牋� When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... � For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address.� � � � Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant� varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: 燬teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.�燼rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. 燢ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. 牋� Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma� already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, 牋� Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, � Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--爄nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings.� So how does it follow that strings aren't real.� That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself.� But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent 牋� When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... � For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address.� � � � Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Don't be silly. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Is F = Ma one of the fundamental particles ? What's it look like ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 09:17:38 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology No Roger, Take f=ma. M is a physical entity for sure. F is often taken to be physical as well, Strings are both particles of force and mass. QED Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I think the problem is with the word strings. It's confusing, because it causes you to make a mental picture of strings and so consider them as actual physical strings in space. But strings only exist on paper, not in the physical word. They're just equations, descriptions of how particles move. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 06:50:00 *Subject:* Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Baloney. Strings are extended in space. Where did you get that from? On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Stephen P. King Unlike everyday strings, the strings of string theory are not extended in space. The particles they describe, however, are extended in space. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 15:25:31 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--爄nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent 牋 When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard, This description assumes an embedding space-time that is separable from the monads in it. One alternative is to work with an abstract model of (closed under mutual inclusion) totally disconnected compact spaces where the individual components of the space are the images that a set of mutually reflecting monads have. This allows us to use Greene's r - 1/r duality and the Stone duality as well. ;-) On 8/22/2012 9:15 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Yes Stephan, The 10^500 possible windings of flux constraining the compactified dimensions are sufficient to populate some 10^120 universes with every monad unique or distinct. The CYMs are known to be discrete and since the hyperfine constant varies across the universe it is likely that the monads are distinct. That this all comes from a subspace of ennumerable particles to my mind satisfies Occum's Razor. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! On 8/22/2012 2:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem? Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique theory? To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history, despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest as much. Jason On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. Kovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant� varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: 燬teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.�燼 rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. 燢ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. 牋� Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma� already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, 牋� Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, � Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--爄 nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings.� So how does it follow that strings aren't real.� That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself.� But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent 牋� When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... � For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address.� � � � Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Stephan, That is very interesting. I have been using a model based on the monads being enumrable as in an abstract Godelian Peano Arithmetic. Do you have a particular model in mind? Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, This description assumes an embedding space-time that is separable from the monads in it. One alternative is to work with an abstract model of (closed under mutual inclusion) totally disconnected compact spaces where the individual components of the space are the images that a set of mutually reflecting monads have. This allows us to use Greene's r - 1/r duality and the Stone duality as well. ;-) On 8/22/2012 9:15 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Yes Stephan, The 10^500 possible windings of flux constraining the compactified dimensions are sufficient to populate some 10^120 universes with every monad unique or distinct. The CYMs are known to be discrete and since the hyperfine constant varies across the universe it is likely that the monads are distinct. That this all comes from a subspace of ennumerable particles to my mind satisfies Occum's Razor. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! On 8/22/2012 2:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem? Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique theory? To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history, despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest as much. Jason On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. Kovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Stephan, According to Shing-Tung Yau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing-Tung_Yau current Head of the Harvard Math Dept. who verified Calabi's Conjecture, the compact manifolds are 1000 Planck lengths across and are constraaned by higher-order EM flux that winds thru its 500 holes (see The Shape of Inner Space by Yau). It is considered that each flux winding has 10 quantum states so that the total number of distinct windings is 10^500. I suggest that the number of quantum states rather may equal the dimensionality of the compact manifolds, so that the number of possibilities is 6^500 or 10^389, which is just enough to fill a good sized universe like ours with every Compact Manifold being unique. Thanks for your interest. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant� varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: 燬teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.�燼rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. 燢ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. 牋� Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma� already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, 牋� Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, � Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--爄nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings.� So how does it follow that strings aren't real.� That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself.� But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent 牋� When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... � For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address.� � � � Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard, So far it seems that a model of monads as enumerable as a Godelian PA would work, but one would ahve to convert that into a complete atomic Boolean algebraic form for it to fit neatly into the scheme that I am using. What I am doing is exploring the idea first discussed by Vaughan Pratt here http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf. It is complicated... AFAIK it gives us a way to solve the pre-ordained harmony problem of the monadology and thus also solving the mind-body problem and the interaction problem in one fell swoop. What is most attractive about this for me is that it also has some deep implications that follow along Bruno's work, with a few caveats. On 8/22/2012 12:20 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, That is very interesting. I have been using a model based on the monads being enumrable as in an abstract Godelian Peano Arithmetic. Do you have a particular model in mind? Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, This description assumes an embedding space-time that is separable from the monads in it. One alternative is to work with an abstract model of (closed under mutual inclusion) totally disconnected compact spaces where the individual components of the space are the images that a set of mutually reflecting monads have. This allows us to use Greene's r - 1/r duality and the Stone duality as well. ;-) On 8/22/2012 9:15 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Yes Stephan, The 10^500 possible windings of flux constraining the compactified dimensions are sufficient to populate some 10^120 universes with every monad unique or distinct. The CYMs are known to be discrete and since the hyperfine constant varies across the universe it is likely that the monads are distinct. That this all comes from a subspace of ennumerable particles to my mind satisfies Occum's Razor. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! On 8/22/2012 2:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem? Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique theory? To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history, despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest as much. Jason On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard, I am familiar with those idea and several others that are similar (such as that of Matti Pitkanen http://matpitka.blogspot.com/who I have had long discussions with). Yau and the others seem to retain the same ontological assumptions that modern physics has been using. My philosophical inquiry is exploring alternative ontologies that do not assume primitive physicality as fundamental. This has forced me to go back and dig up all of the prior work, such as Leibniz and Descartes, on ontology. It is ironic but the claimed rejection of philosophical implications and questions by modern physicist and their shut up and calculate attitudes have only deepened the problem that they face. Only recently, physicists like Chris Isham http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/9210011 and Roger Penrose have had the timerity to broach the philosophical questions and have faced the problems squarely. On 8/22/2012 12:34 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephen, According to Shing-Tung Yau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing-Tung_Yau current Head of the Harvard Math Dept. who verified Calabi's Conjecture, the compact manifolds are 1000 Planck lengths across and are constraaned by higher-order EM flux that winds thru its 500 holes (see The Shape of Inner Space by Yau). It is considered that each flux winding has 10 quantum states so that the total number of distinct windings is 10^500. I suggest that the number of quantum states rather may equal the dimensionality of the compact manifolds, so that the number of possibilities is 6^500 or 10^389, which is just enough to fill a good sized universe like ours with every Compact Manifold being unique. Thanks for your interest. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant� varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: 燬teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.�燼 rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. 燢ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. 牋� Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma� already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, 牋� Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, � Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--爄nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
On 8/22/2012 4:36 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! NP-complete problems, or just N-problems, are ones that consume a lot of computational resources for large problems. But the required resources are finite and the problems are solvable. So what's the problem? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
On 8/22/2012 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:36 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! NP-complete problems, or just N-problems, are ones that consume a lot of computational resources for large problems. But the required resources are finite and the problems are solvable. So what's the problem? Brent -- It is all about how big the finite problems grow to and whether or not their demand for resources can be kept up with the load. It seems to me that Nature would divide up the labor into as many niches as possible and have a distributed on demand system rather than a single top down computation system. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
On 8/22/2012 7:43 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 1:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/22/2012 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:36 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! NP-complete problems, or just N-problems, are ones that consume a lot of computational resources for large problems. But the required resources are finite and the problems are solvable. So what's the problem? Brent -- It is all about how big the finite problems grow to and whether or not their demand for resources can be kept up with the load. It seems to me that Nature would divide up the labor into as many niches as possible and have a distributed on demand system rather than a single top down computation system. But you're trying to explain nature. You seem to be assuming nature as a limited resource in the explanation, thus assuming the thing you're trying to explain. Bruno at least puts his explanation in Platonia where the resources are infinite. Brent -- Hi Brent, Of course I am trying to explain Nature, in the sense of building a ontological theoretical framework. If one starts assuming that Nature has infinite resources available then one has to ask why is there a finite world with all the thermodynamic drudgery? Bruno does not seem to ever actually address this directly. It is left as an open problem. This is why he dismisses the NP-Complete problem so casually... It is easy to think that way when thinking in top - down terms. I am assuming the known physical laws, particularly thermodynamics and working back down to the ontology. He and I are looking from opposite directions. It does not mean that we fundamentally disagree on the general picture. There is really only one major disagreement between Bruno and I and it is our definitions of Universality. He defines computations and numbers are existing completely seperated from the physical and I insist that there must be at least one physical system that can actually implement a given computation. This puts the material worlds and immaterial realm on equal ontological footings and joined together in a isomorphism type duality relation because of this restriction. I care more about the philosophical stuff and he the logical stuff. That a nice division of labor. :-) -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
On 8/22/2012 6:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/22/2012 7:43 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 1:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/22/2012 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:36 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! NP-complete problems, or just N-problems, are ones that consume a lot of computational resources for large problems. But the required resources are finite and the problems are solvable. So what's the problem? Brent -- It is all about how big the finite problems grow to and whether or not their demand for resources can be kept up with the load. It seems to me that Nature would divide up the labor into as many niches as possible and have a distributed on demand system rather than a single top down computation system. But you're trying to explain nature. You seem to be assuming nature as a limited resource in the explanation, thus assuming the thing you're trying to explain. Bruno at least puts his explanation in Platonia where the resources are infinite. Brent -- Hi Brent, Of course I am trying to explain Nature, in the sense of building a ontological theoretical framework. If one starts assuming that Nature has infinite resources available then one has to ask why is there a finite world with all the thermodynamic drudgery? How do you know the world is finite? Most cosmologies allow that the multiverse is infinite in extent. Bruno does not seem to ever actually address this directly. Sure he does. The UD only uses finite resources at any give step - the states are countable and are only executed finitely. It is left as an open problem. This is why he dismisses the NP-Complete problem so casually... It is easy to think that way when thinking in top - down terms. I am assuming the known physical laws, particularly thermodynamics and working back down to the ontology. Physical laws are never 'known'. They are models to explain our observations. If you assume them, then you've assume the model is correct and the ontology is whatever exists in the model. Why would you do that?? He and I are looking from opposite directions. It does not mean that we fundamentally disagree on the general picture. There is really only one major disagreement between Bruno and I and it is our definitions of Universality. He defines computations and numbers are existing completely seperated from the physical and I insist that there must be at least one physical system that can actually implement a given computation. I think it is probably a consequence of his theory that persons can only exist when physics exists and vice versa; but it is difficult to work out the implications (especially for me, maybe not for Bruno). This puts the material worlds and immaterial realm on equal ontological footings and joined together in a isomorphism type duality relation because of this restriction. That means you need a material primitive AND an immaterial primitive. I care more about the philosophical stuff and he the logical stuff. That a nice division of labor. :-) Logic is just some rules to keep us from talking self-contradictory nonsense. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
On 8/22/2012 9:35 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 6:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/22/2012 7:43 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 1:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/22/2012 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:36 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! NP-complete problems, or just N-problems, are ones that consume a lot of computational resources for large problems. But the required resources are finite and the problems are solvable. So what's the problem? Brent -- It is all about how big the finite problems grow to and whether or not their demand for resources can be kept up with the load. It seems to me that Nature would divide up the labor into as many niches as possible and have a distributed on demand system rather than a single top down computation system. But you're trying to explain nature. You seem to be assuming nature as a limited resource in the explanation, thus assuming the thing you're trying to explain. Bruno at least puts his explanation in Platonia where the resources are infinite. Brent -- Hi Brent, Of course I am trying to explain Nature, in the sense of building a ontological theoretical framework. If one starts assuming that Nature has infinite resources available then one has to ask why is there a finite world with all the thermodynamic drudgery? How do you know the world is finite? Most cosmologies allow that the multiverse is infinite in extent. Hi Brent, Good catch! I mean to write observationally finite. The plurality of physical worlds allows for the possibility of at least one physical system to implement any possible computation, so we don't need the wall of Platonia to be tape for the UD. Bruno does not seem to ever actually address this directly. Sure he does. The UD only uses finite resources at any give step - the states are countable and are only executed finitely. Yes, but with no reference to thermodynamic limits. It is left as an open problem. This is why he dismisses the NP-Complete problem so casually... It is easy to think that way when thinking in top - down terms. I am assuming the known physical laws, particularly thermodynamics and working back down to the ontology. Physical laws are never 'known'. They are models to explain our observations. Another good point. This is where the SSA is useful. I leave that part of things to the logicians to work out. If you assume them, then you've assume the model is correct and the ontology is whatever exists in the model. Why would you do that?? This is Bruno's sin, not mine! Haev you read our knock-down-drag-out fight over the definition of existence? He defined existence as contingent on theory, I don't. He and I are looking from opposite directions. It does not mean that we fundamentally disagree on the general picture. There is really only one major disagreement between Bruno and I and it is our definitions of Universality. He defines computations and numbers are existing completely seperated from the physical and I insist that there must be at least one physical system that can actually implement a given computation. I think it is probably a consequence of his theory that persons can only exist when physics exists and vice versa; but it is difficult to work out the implications (especially for me, maybe not for Bruno). OK, but if we look
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 16:21:32 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, Well I agree the CYMs are a form of substance. But there are string theories where the background spacetime is flexible, to use a common term. So that is not a theory limitation. The frozen block approximation allows for certain solutions that the flexible spacetime inhibits.? I do think the CYMs are flexible since according to string theorists they contain the the laws and constants of physics allowing for 10^500 different universes. That should cover every possibility. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/20/2012 1:40 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Stephan, I do not think that string theory requires a fixed background.? Otherwise string theory could not be a prospective ToE. Richard Hi Richard, ?? I had the very same reaction, but research it for yourself. Look at the literature, the trick is the use of fiber bundles which require a base space. They get away with it because they are using the entire space-time manifold (like the frozen ice block idea) as the base space, so it appears to be OK. But this leads to the landscape problem because they have to consider the theory of all possible space-time manifolds. The fundamental problem that I see with the entire exercise is the assumption of primitive matter (here in the form of primitive space-time manifolds that are fibered with a plenum of orbifolds), the very same problem that Bruno is pointing out. The entire idea that substance is fundamental needs to be re-evaluated and seen as just a basis of observation and not something ontologically a priori. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/20/2012 11:36 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Wiki:? Mereology has been axiomatized in various ways as applications of?predicate logic?o?formal ontology, of which mereology is an important part. A common element of such axiomatizations is the assumption, shared with inclusion, that the part-whole relation?ordersits universe, meaning that everything is a part of itself (reflexivity), that a part of a part of a whole is itself a part of that whole (transitivity), Richard: These assumptions apply to the Indra Pearl's of Chinese Buddhism and to Liebniz's monads. And more importantly superstring theory requires that tiny balls of??6-dmensional?space exist which turn out to have the properties of reflexivity and transitivity, and therefore are candidates to be the pearls and monads. ?iki: and that two distinct entities cannot each be a part of the other (antisymmetry). Richard: It seems that neither the pearls, or monads, and certainly not the CYMs have this property. So its strickly not mereology that applies to monads and the rest. Hi Richard, ? I agree with all with a small exception:? I have a big problem with the superstring theory's use of a fixed background spacetime into which it embeds the compactified manifolds. It violates general covariance in doing this! -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. Kovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. Kovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. Kovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Wiki: Mereology has been axiomatized in various ways as applications of predicate logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic to formal ontologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology, of which mereology is an important part. A common element of such axiomatizations is the assumption, shared with inclusion, that the part-whole relation orders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_orderits universe, meaning that everything is a part of itself (reflexivityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_relation), that a part of a part of a whole is itself a part of that whole ( transitivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation), Richard: These assumptions apply to the Indra Pearl's of Chinese Buddhism and to Liebniz's monads. And more importantly superstring theory requires that tiny balls of 6-dmensional space exist which turn out to have the properties of reflexivity and transitivity, and therefore are candidates to be the pearls and monads. Wiki: and that two distinct entities cannot each be a part of the other ( antisymmetry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisymmetric_relation). Richard: It seems that neither the pearls, or monads, and certainly not the CYMs have this property. So its strickly not mereology that applies to monads and the rest. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Mereology is part and parcel of Leibniz's system, to use a limp pun. 1) Although unproven, but because God is good while the world is contingent (imperfect, misfitting), Leibniz, like Augustine and Paul, believed that things as a whole work for good, but unfortunately not all parts have to be equally good. This is essentially his theodicy. 2). Everything is nonlocal: The monads are arranged like a tree structure leading up to the Supreme Monad, above which is God, causing all things to happen and perceiving all things. Now Man, being near the top of the Great Chain of Being, and the perceptions of each monad are being constantly and instantly updated to reflect the perceptions all of the other monads in the universe, So, to the degree of their logical distance from one another, their intelligence, and clarity of vision, each monad is omniscient. Personally I use the analogy of the holograph, each part contining the whole, but wqith limited resolution. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-18, 17:34:30 *Subject:* Re: Monads as computing elements Dear Roger, From what I have studied of Leibniz' Monadology and commentary by many authors, it seems to me that all appearances of interactions is given purely in terms of synchronizations of the internal action of the monads. This synchronization or co-ordination seems very similar to Bruno's Bpp idea but for an apriori given plurality of Monads. I identify the computational aspect of the Monad with a unitary evolution transformation (in a linear algebra on topological spaces). I have been investigating whether or not it might be possible to define the mereology of monads in terms of the way that QM systems become and unbecome entangled with each other. Have you seen any similar references to this latter idea? On 8/18/2012 11:58 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Stephen P. King In the end, as Leibniz puts it, you couldn't tell the difference, they would seem to have windows, but actually, since substances, being logical entities, cannot actually interact, they all must communicate instead through the supreme monad, (the CPU) which presumably reads and writes on them. I think they are like subprograms, with storage files, which can't do anything by themselves, but must be operated on by the CPU according to their current perceptions (stored state data) which reflect all of the other stored state date in the universe of monads. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Roger, On 8/20/2012 6:48 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Mereology is part and parcel of Leibniz's system, to use a limp pun. I like puns! They show us that existence does not just have one side/form/pattern/perspective... 1) Although unproven, but because God is good while the world is contingent (imperfect, misfitting), Leibniz, like Augustine and Paul, believed that things as a whole work for good, but unfortunately not all parts have to be equally good. This is essentially his theodicy. OK, I agree with the spirit of this statement but I am trying to find the canonical mereology of the monads. We can get lost in the many rabbit trails of concepts chains that this idea can lead off to... In the words of Red Leader Stay on Target! ;-) 2). Everything is nonlocal: The monads are arranged like a tree structure leading up to the Supreme Monad, above which is God, causing all things to happen and perceiving all things. Yes, but I think that it is a non-Archimedean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Archimedean arrangement and, to be specific, an ultrametric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrametric_space that can be represented as a Bethe lattice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethe_lattice. Bethe lattice Each node represents a monad and the edges represent connections to other monads that it is partly bisimilar to. All composition is given in terms of relative wholes, as there are no parts in the Archimedean sense in a monadology. The guiding principle is all things are monads or parts of a monad. The parts here is a perspective issue that occurs when one monad has only a partial simulation of another... In more theological terms we might say that the Godhead is immanent in all monads as it is all of its aspects. Now Man, being near the top of the Great Chain of Being, and the perceptions of each monad are being constantly and instantly updated to reflect the perceptions all of the other monads in the universe, Yes, exactly, but this being constantly and instantly updated is not a communication scheme as we think in classical terms with signals traveling to and fro; it is the moving in and out of synchrony of monads. The key is that there is no exact and finitely representable orchestration of this movement (Bohm's implicate order was an attempt to capture this idea, but Bohm missed the non-archemedean aspect and thus misunderstood the mereology problem!!), there is only finite and inexact approximations. So, to the degree of their logical distance from one another, their intelligence, and clarity of vision, each monad is omniscient. Yes, and this omniscience, I believe, is captured by the superposition aspect of a QM wavefuction. I use the Net of Indra concept to illustrate this. Each monad, like the jewels in Indra's net, is a reflection (simulation!) of all others but never exactly as exact reflection would be identity (exact bisimilarity). Personally I use the analogy of the holograph, each part contining the whole, but with limited resolution. Yes exactly (pun!), this does a good job representing the phase angle canonical form of this idea. It must be understood that there is no one true picture of this. We have to consider all of the versions of it as we see the properties of objects are dependent on the means with which we observe them. This is the implication of the saying: Nature (God) does not have a preferred observational basis. What we need to define this mathematically is to find the canonical form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_form. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-18, 17:34:30 *Subject:* Re: Monads as computing elements Dear Roger, From what I have studied of Leibniz' Monadology and commentary by many authors, it seems to me that all appearances of interactions is given purely in terms of synchronizations of the internal action of the monads. This synchronization or co-ordination seems very similar to Bruno's Bpp idea but for an apriori given plurality of Monads. I identify the computational aspect of the Monad with a unitary evolution transformation (in a linear algebra on topological spaces). I have been investigating whether or not it might be possible to define the mereology of monads in terms of the way that QM systems become and unbecome entangled with each other. Have you seen any similar references to this latter idea? On 8/18/2012 11:58 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Stephen P. King In the end, as Leibniz puts it, you couldn't tell the difference, they would seem to have
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
On 8/20/2012 11:36 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Wiki: Mereology has been axiomatized in various ways as applications of predicate logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic to formal ontology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology, of which mereology is an important part. A common element of such axiomatizations is the assumption, shared with inclusion, that the part-whole relation orders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_orderits universe, meaning that everything is a part of itself (reflexivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_relation), that a part of a part of a whole is itself a part of that whole (transitivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation), Richard: These assumptions apply to the Indra Pearl's of Chinese Buddhism and to Liebniz's monads. And more importantly superstring theory requires that tiny balls of 6-dmensional space exist which turn out to have the properties of reflexivity and transitivity, and therefore are candidates to be the pearls and monads. Wiki: and that two distinct entities cannot each be a part of the other (antisymmetry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisymmetric_relation). Richard: It seems that neither the pearls, or monads, and certainly not the CYMs have this property. So its strickly not mereology that applies to monads and the rest. Hi Richard, I agree with all with a small exception: I have a big problem with the superstring theory's use of a fixed background spacetime into which it embeds the compactified manifolds. It violates general covariance in doing this! -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Stephan, I do not think that string theory requires a fixed background. Otherwise string theory could not be a prospective ToE. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/20/2012 11:36 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Wiki: Mereology has been axiomatized in various ways as applications of predicate logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic to formal ontologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology, of which mereology is an important part. A common element of such axiomatizations is the assumption, shared with inclusion, that the part-whole relation orders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_orderits universe, meaning that everything is a part of itself (reflexivityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_relation), that a part of a part of a whole is itself a part of that whole ( transitivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation), Richard: These assumptions apply to the Indra Pearl's of Chinese Buddhism and to Liebniz's monads. And more importantly superstring theory requires that tiny balls of 6-dmensional space exist which turn out to have the properties of reflexivity and transitivity, and therefore are candidates to be the pearls and monads. Wiki: and that two distinct entities cannot each be a part of the other (antisymmetry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisymmetric_relation). Richard: It seems that neither the pearls, or monads, and certainly not the CYMs have this property. So its strickly not mereology that applies to monads and the rest. Hi Richard, I agree with all with a small exception: I have a big problem with the superstring theory's use of a fixed background spacetime into which it embeds the compactified manifolds. It violates general covariance in doing this! -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
On 8/20/2012 1:40 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Stephan, I do not think that string theory requires a fixed background. Otherwise string theory could not be a prospective ToE. Richard Hi Richard, I had the very same reaction, but research it for yourself. Look at the literature, the trick is the use of fiber bundles which require a base space. They get away with it because they are using the entire space-time manifold (like the frozen ice block idea) as the base space, so it appears to be OK. But this leads to the landscape problem because they have to consider the theory of all possible space-time manifolds. The fundamental problem that I see with the entire exercise is the assumption of primitive matter (here in the form of primitive space-time manifolds that are fibered with a plenum of orbifolds), the very same problem that Bruno is pointing out. The entire idea that substance is fundamental needs to be re-evaluated and seen as just a basis of observation and not something ontologically a priori. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/20/2012 11:36 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Wiki: Mereology has been axiomatized in various ways as applications of predicate logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic to formal ontology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology, of which mereology is an important part. A common element of such axiomatizations is the assumption, shared with inclusion, that the part-whole relation orders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_orderits universe, meaning that everything is a part of itself (reflexivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_relation), that a part of a part of a whole is itself a part of that whole (transitivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation), Richard: These assumptions apply to the Indra Pearl's of Chinese Buddhism and to Liebniz's monads. And more importantly superstring theory requires that tiny balls of 6-dmensional space exist which turn out to have the properties of reflexivity and transitivity, and therefore are candidates to be the pearls and monads. Wiki: and that two distinct entities cannot each be a part of the other (antisymmetry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisymmetric_relation). Richard: It seems that neither the pearls, or monads, and certainly not the CYMs have this property. So its strickly not mereology that applies to monads and the rest. Hi Richard, I agree with all with a small exception: I have a big problem with the superstring theory's use of a fixed background spacetime into which it embeds the compactified manifolds. It violates general covariance in doing this! -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
